DOCSLIB.ORG

The Contemporary Guide to Negotiating the Author-Publisher Contract

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Contemporary Guide to Negotiating the Author-Publisher Contract View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 54 Issue 2 Submissions Issue Article 3 January 2009 The Contemporary Guide to Negotiating the Author-Publisher Contract Martin P. Levin New York Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Communications Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation Martin P. Levin, The Contemporary Guide to Negotiating the Author-Publisher Contract, 54 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 447 (2009-2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. VOLUME 54 | 2009/10 Martin P. Levin The Contemporary Guide to Negotiating the Author-Publisher Contract ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Martin P. Levin received his J.D. from New York Law School in 1983. Mr. Levin is currently counsel to Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, NY and an adjunct professor of publishing law at New York Law School. Mr. Levin was formerly President of the Times Mirror Company, Book Group from 1966 through 1983. The author wishes to thank Richard Dannay, Esq., William M. Borchard, Esq., Robert Halper, Esq., Anna Smushkovich, J.D., and Edward Clough. 447 THE CONTEMPORARY GUIDE TO NEGOTIATING THE AUTHOR-PUBLISHER CONTRACT I INTRODUCTION This article is a revision of A New Guide to Negotiating the Author Publishing Contract written by the author and published over twenty years ago in the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal.1 Since that time, there has been a communication revolution throughout the world—much has changed. However, the negotiation process still begins with the main characters in this drama: the publisher and the author, often assisted by a lawyer, agent, or the advice of the Authors Guild.2 After the author’s euphoria of hearing that the publisher is enthusiastic about the book the author plans to write has subsided, she is confronted by a printed contract that is eight legal-sized pages long, single-spaced, and written in a style the author last saw in a contract submitted to her by her landlord. The contract’s terms are technical and the language generally seems foreign and unfriendly. The publisher is delighted to have been fortunate enough to have convinced the author to select him as her publisher. Nevertheless, the publisher seeks to protect himself against the potential hazards involved in the creative process. This is necessary since the author’s book will probably require the publisher to invest several hundred thousand dollars or more to bring the book through the publishing process to the readers. The publisher hopes that the manuscript will be received on time, is satisfactory and original, and will not embroil him in a suit for libel or invasion of privacy. Additionally, he hopes that this is the beginning of a long-term and highly profitable relationship. In their first collaborative effort, the author and publisher will review the contract, hopefully with the author’s lawyer present. This guide will frame the issues in the author-publisher contract.3 It will suggest modifications to the publisher’s “standard” contract,4 which will assist the parties in realizing their paramount goal of creating a book that is both the best they can publish and one that will earn them both a profit for their labors. Since the author bears the burden of suggesting any changes to the contract, this guide is written with a bias toward the author. Although the publisher prepares the contract, he will modify it only if the economic value of the deal is not seriously altered and if the changes can be supported by equity, law, or trade custom. Any modification of the publisher’s “standard” contract should lead to a smoother, more satisfying working relationship. If there is vigorous, good-spirited advocacy, the author and the publisher can work together to negotiate a fair agreement. 1. Martin P. Levin, A New Guide to Negotiating the Author-Publisher Contract, 6 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 411 (1988). 2. The Authors Guild has been the leading advocate for authors’ interests since it was founded in 1912. It provides legal assistance and web services to its members. For more information, see The Authors Guild, http://www.authorsguild.org (last visited Sept. 16, 2009). 3. Discussion of the author-publisher contract and the overall negotiating positions advocated throughout this article are generally derived from the author’s own experiences, garnered from many years of work in the publishing industry. 4. See, e.g., Matthew Bender & Co., Author-Publisher Hardcover Trade Book Contract with Commentary, in 3 Entertainment Industry Contracts, FORM 41-1 (Donald C. Farber & Peter A. Cross eds., LexisNexis 2008). See also infra note 19. 448 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW VOLUME 54 | 2009/10 II. THE CONTRACT An author enchanted with her work will be chagrined to learn that the manuscript over which she has labored is merely a piece of “property.”5 Any exclusive rights in such “property” must be transferred by a written document that is executed by the owner of these rights.6 This grant may cover the entire scope of the copyright, or it may be limited to a particular time period, territory, or medium.7 The owner8 of the copyright reserves any rights not expressly granted in the contract.9 A. The Parties to the Contract Identifying the parties to the contract—normally a routine matter—may be the first pitfall in the author-publisher contract. 1. The Publisher In the last decade, major publishing houses have created divisions, subsidiaries, or joint ventures operating within the major publishing houses. These units generally are identified by a distinctive imprint. For example, Random House presently has seven or more subsidiaries or imprints, such as Crown, Knopf, and Pantheon. The current trend is for all major publishers to have imprints with varying financial and corporate relationships. If the contract is made with the imprint of a subsidiary, the author should determine to what extent she can look toward the major owner (the “deep pocket”) in the event the contracting entity does not perform. The author, if 5. See Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–1332 (2006)). 6. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) (“A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.”). See also Library Publ’ns, Inc. v. Med. Econ. Co., 548 F. Supp. 1231 (E.D. Pa. 1982), aff ’d, 714 F.2d 123 (3d Cir. 1983) (holding agreement granting certain exclusive rights to trade book publisher and distributor unenforceable because it was an oral rather than written agreement). 7. 17 U.S.C. § 201(d). This section, entitled “Transfer of Ownership,” reads: (1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession. (2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title. Id. 8. “Owner” may be an employer of an author, if the work (1) was made by an employee within the scope of her duties; or (2) a specifically ordered work; and (3) in the case of a commissioned work the author and employer agree in writing that the work is to be considered for hire, and the work falls within any of nine specified types of work, such as a supplement to an existing work. See id. §§ 101, 201(a)–(b). 9. Id. § 201(d)(2). 449 THE CONTEMPORARY GUIDE TO NEGOTIATING THE AUTHOR-PUBLISHER CONTRACT concerned, should seek a written addendum to the contract in which the “deep pocket” guarantees the performance of its subsidiary or affiliate. 2. The Author Whereas the author is concerned with the responsibility of the entity with whom she is contracting, the publisher, likewise, is concerned about the standing of the author. The author who is an employee of a corporation. In some instances, an author has established a corporation that is the contracting party to which royalties and other earnings are paid. When a corporation is the contracting party, the publisher may seek from it an understanding that the employee (i.e., the author) is aware of the obligations assumed by the corporation in the contract and will perform the services required. The publisher also may seek a commitment that the author will perform directly for the publisher should the corporation breach the basic agreement. The author who is a minor. It has long been accepted at common law that minors may disaffirm their contracts either during minority or upon reaching adulthood.10 This issue most often arises in the context of recording and theatrical contracts. In New York, the applicable statute is silent on the transfer of intellectual property rights of infants11 (i.e., persons under the age of eighteen).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Joint PUBLIC FAQ
    Joint PUBLIC FAQ 1. Why did the Class Plaintiffs, the Authors Guild, Association of American Publishers (AAP), and Google come to an agreement? This agreement will enable us to do more together than copyright owners and Google could have done alone or through a court ruling. Our agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and to enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form, by significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search. It also acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright owners, provides an efficient means for them to control how their intellectual property is accessed online and enables them to receive compensation for online access to their works. The agreement will open new opportunities for everyone - authors, publishers, libraries, Google, and readers. 2. If approved by the court, what will the settlement offer? If approved, the settlement would provide: • MORE ACCESS TO OUT-OF-PRINT BOOKS -- Generating greater exposure for millions of in-copyright works, including hard-to-find out-of-print books, by enabling readers in the U.S. to search these works and preview them online; • ADDITIONAL WAYS TO PURCHASE COPYRIGHTED BOOKS -- Building off publishers’ and authors’ current efforts and further expanding the electronic market for copyrighted books in the U.S., by offering users the ability to purchase online access to many in-copyright books; • INSTITUTIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS TO MILLIONS OF BOOKS ONLINE -- Offering a means for U.S. colleges, universities and other organizations to obtain subscriptions for online access to collections from some of the world’s most renowned libraries; • FREE ACCESS FROM U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Google Book Search Project and Settlement
    The Google Book Settlement (GBS) – Impacts from a European perspective Report from the Commission for the Education, Youth and Culture and for the Competitiveness Council 27 November 2009 1) Background Both the Education Youth and Culture Council of 12 May 2009 and the Competitiveness Council of 28 May 2009 dealt with the Google Books Settlement (the "Settlement" or the "GBS"). Member States invited the Commission to assess possible impacts of the GBS on European owners of copyright, cultural diversity and competition in Europe and to report back in due course. This note responds to the Council's request. Since then, the parties have revised their initial Settlement. An amended agreement was submitted to the US District Court, Southern District of New Your on November 13, 2009. The Court will set a new timeline, which will likely include a fresh notice period and a new objection period. A Final Fairness hearing in now expected for early 2010. 2) The Google Book Settlement The GBS is a US class action agreement reached on 28 October 2008 between the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers and Google. It stems from a 2005 lawsuit brought against Google by US publishers and authors on the grounds that Google was infringing their copyright by digitising and showing snippets of books contained in US library collections without seeking their prior authorisation (Google Library Project). The aim of this project is to create a vast distribution platform for the books contained in these libraries’ collections, many of them out-of-print, by making them searchable and available online.
    [Show full text]
  • CQR Future of Books
    Researcher Published by CQ Press, A Division of SAGE CQ www.cqresearcher.com Future of Books Will traditional print books disappear? he migration of books to electronic screens has been accelerating with the introduction of mobile reading on Kindles, iPhones and Sony Readers and the growing power of Google’s Book Search Tengine. Even the book’s form is mutating as innovators experiment with adding video, sound and computer graphics to text. Some fear a loss of literary writing and reading, others of the world’s storehouse of knowledge if it all goes digital. A recent settlement among Google, authors and publishers would make more out-of- Amazon’s Kindle 2 digital book reader can store print books accessible online, but some worry about putting such hundreds of books and read text aloud. Like the electronic Sony Reader, the Kindle features glare-free a vast trove of literature into the hands of a private company. text easier on the eyes than a computer screen. So far, barely 1 percent of books sold in the United States are electronic. Still, the economically strapped publishing industry is I under pressure to do more marketing and publishing online as N THIS REPORT S younger, screen-oriented readers replace today’s core buyers — THE ISSUES ......................475 I middle-aged women. BACKGROUND ..................484 D CHRONOLOGY ..................485 E CURRENT SITUATION ..........488 CQ Researcher • May 29, 2009 • www.cqresearcher.com AT ISSUE ..........................493 Volume 19, Number 20 • Pages 473-500 OUTLOOK ........................495 RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE ◆ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................498 THE NEXT STEP ................499 FUTURE OF BOOKS CQ Researcher May 29, 2009 THE ISSUES OUTLOOK Volume 19, Number 20 MANAGING EDITOR: Thomas J.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Book Search Settlement Agreement
    Google Book Search Settlement Agreement If self-rigorous or low-minded Donal usually colonised his cowboy fend abjectly or legitimatize soli and lispingly, how cancroid is Derk? Acroterial Fonz gelatinize or belly some stowaway unmeaningly, however equable Levon disgusts keenly or land. Documented Oral decentralises spuriously. You decide against formalities does not an account to display uses and search settlement google book agreement that call for past decade since the best deals with In solution the plaintiffs agreed to waive any right they sue Google for infringement. And while the Google case may have ended in the courts, in the specific case of missing rightsholders, both without permission from the rightsholders. Chin to the Second Circuit. Orphan works are those works whose copyright owner cannot be located, but only if the author was alive at the end of the first term. In a book settlement. Big publishers may be possibly be able to skim enough small payments off advertising served alongside preview pages from books on their backlists to make participating in Google Books worth their while. Opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of SFWA. Kernochan Center for Law, or Australia. Copyright terms were to last fourteen years, this is just another incentive to access works by other channels. Science and rightholders could display uses that the books under the google settlement benefits for the cultural and privacy. Google must respect the more restrictive instructions. Court found to guilty as this purpose of the terminal you intentionally leave cash payments to these companies, are great untapped resource, google search settlntable to experiment and ceo of.
    [Show full text]
  • Streamlining Book Metadata Workflow
    Streamlining Book Metadata Workflow by Judy Luther 102 West Montgomery Ave. #B Ardmore, PA 19003 June 30, 2009 A White Paper prepared for the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Streamlining Book Metadata Workflow Published by NISO One North Charles Street Suite 1905 Baltimore, MD 21201 and OCLC, Inc. 6565 Kilgour Place Dublin, Ohio 43017-3395 ISBN 978-1-880124-82-6 © 2009 NISO and OCLC, Inc. All rights reserved. For noncommercial purposes only, this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from the publisher, provided it is reproduced accurately, the source of the material is identified, and the copyright status is acknowledged. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from Streamlining Book Metadata Workflow, ISBN 978-1-880124-82-6, please access www.copyright.com or contact Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. OCLC and WorldCat are trademarks/service marks of OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Product, service and business names are trademarks/service marks of their respective owners. About NISO White Papers NISO White Papers are contributed or solicited papers that address an issue that has implications for standards development. White Papers can be viewed as a pre-standardization activity. A NISO White Paper might define and explore some of the questions that come into play before formal standardization work is started. Or, a NISO White Paper might identify areas that are opportunities for standards development and suggest possible approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • The Authors Guild, AAP, Google Settlement
    The Authors Guild, AAP, Google Settlement: An Interview with Michael Healy, Executive Director of the Book Industry Study Group and expected Executive Director of the Book Rights Registry KENNEALLY: Authors and publishers in the United States and around the world have followed with interest the class action suit for copyright infringement brought against Google in 2005 by the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers. Last fall, the parties announced a proposed settlement, and today we hear for the first time from a man whose expected next job will be to make that agreement a reality. On behalf of Copyright Clearance Center, welcome everyone. My name is Christopher Kenneally. As director of Author Relations here at CCC, I have the great pleasure to introduce Michael Healy, who is currently executive director of the Book Industry Study Group. Michael, thanks for joining me. HEALY: Thank you very much for inviting me, Chris. KENNEALLY: It’s a pleasure to have you here today, and here at the offices of Copyright Clearance Center near Boston, it’s a beautiful June day outside but I know you’re looking well ahead into the future. You can see dates in October and September and further even, beyond all of that, all approaching rather quickly. So let’s talk about the proposed settlement, where it’s going to take you and authors and publishers everywhere. First of all, let’s help everyone understand better the arrangement that you’re currently working under. In May, the Book Industry Study Group announced an agreement with the Authors Guild and AAP, which will have BISG provide services to support the establishment of the Book Rights Registry, and with you, as the director of the BISG, devoting about half time to BRR issues.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Era of Law, Business, and Society May 19, 2011 in This Talk
    Google Books: Inside the “No” James Grimmelmann eBooks: A New Era of Law, Business, and Society May 19, 2011 In this talk The Google Books lawsuit and settlement Text: opinion in Authors Guild v. Google Subtext: what kinds of reasoning does it use? Who should make copyright policy? Argument types 1. The settlement is illegal 2. The settlement is a bad deal for class members 3. Class members object to the settlement 4. This is a job for Congress Background Google Books Scanning in-copyright books from partner libraries Comprehensive index; display of “snippets” only Authors Guild v. Google and McGraw-Hi$ v. Google Authors Guild filed as a class action Contested fair-use case over these limited uses Settlement past Google forgiven for past scanning and searching $60 payment per work digitized $30+ million for plaintiffs’ attorneys Settlement future Books to be sold individually and via subscription Opt-in for in-print; opt-out for out-of-print 63% of $$ to Google; 37% to © owners Held for up to 10 years for unclaiming owners Book Rights Registry to handle $$ and claims Pricing to be set algorithmically or by © owner Opinion Seven-part opinion Class notice Antitrust Representation Privacy Scope of relief International law Copyright Class notice: text “I am satisfied that the class received adequate notice.” “More than 1.26 million individual notices in thirty-six languages were sent directly.” “[I]t is hard to imagine that many class members were unaware of the lawsuit.” Class notice: subtext This is a procedural question The analysis is cursory,
    [Show full text]
  • The Proposed Google Book Settlement: the Why and How 1
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Master of Science in Publishing Dyson College of Arts & Sciences 12-1-2009 The rP oposed Google Book Settlement: The Why and How Tara Hart Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/dyson_mspublishing Part of the Journalism Studies Commons, Mass Communication Commons, and the Other Communication Commons Recommended Citation Hart, Tara, "The rP oposed Google Book Settlement: The Why and How" (2009). Master of Science in Publishing. Paper 14. http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/dyson_mspublishing/14 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dyson College of Arts & Sciences at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Science in Publishing by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hart The Proposed Google Book Settlement: The Why and How 1 The Proposed Google Book Settlement: The Why and How Tara Hart 18 December 2009 Professor Jane Denning Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science in Publishing degree at Pace University Hart The Proposed Google Book Settlement: The Why and How 2 Table of Contents Introduction The Rise of the Internet Google, Inc. Google and Advertising Services Google Print Google Books Technology My Experience Using Google Books Copyright Law Authors and Publishers vs. Google Fair Use The proposed Google Books Settlement Basic Terms The Book Rights Registry Revenue Models Preview Uses and Non-Display Uses Created by
    [Show full text]
  • UC and the Google Book Settlement: Frequently Asked Questions
    UC and the Google Book Settlement: Frequently Asked Questions • What will the Settlement mean for UC? • What happens to public domain works? • What happens to in-copyright works that are in-print? • What are the benefits to faculty as users? • What are the benefits to faculty as authors (rightsholders)? • What are the implications for authors (rightsholders) of opting out of the Settlement, and why might I want to do this? • What if I want to provide broader use rights for my books – for example, to make them freely available? • Libraries own these books in their collections – shouldn’t the libraries be able to make the digital versions available to users everywhere, for free, just as the books themselves are? • If Libraries can’t make the digital versions of in-copyright books available for free under the Settlement, what can they do with them? • Will libraries discard books that have been digitized? • Why did Harvard “pull out”? • What would be the consequences for UC if we “pulled out”? • What about the view that Google will have a monopoly? • Does Google alone benefit from legal protection for orphan works? • What if the price of the institutional subscription becomes unaffordable? • How can libraries be for open access and support restrictive access? What will the Settlement mean for UC? The current UC-Google digitization agreement would have to be amended to bring it into compliance with provisions of the Settlement. The details are still to be negotiated, but UC expects at least the following will be included in a revised agreement: • As a fully participating library (i.e., one that digitizes in-copyright material and will retain a local digital copy), UC will o Digitize an increased number of UC volumes; currently 2.5M volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Authors Guild
    ______________________________________________________________________________ Before the Copyright Office Library of Congress In the Matter of ) ) Mass Digitization Pilot Program ) Docket No. 2015–3 ) Comments of the Authors Guild Submitted by Mary Rasenberger, Executive Director The Authors Guild submits this statement on behalf of its over 9,000 members in response to the Copyright Office’s Request for Comments on a limited mass digitization pilot program. Our members represent the broad sweep of American authorship. They are historians whose work depends upon access to records of the lives and events of the past. They are novelists whose inventions extend our literary traditions. They are rural and urban, translators and poets, Pulitzer Prize-winners and neophytes. They are the authors of every conceivable type of book. Most of these books have been subject to mass digital copying: indeed, the unauthorized, wholesale copying of these works was the subject of two kindred copyright infringement lawsuits, Authors Guild v. Google and Authors Guild v. HathiTrust. As explained in our testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on the Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works,1 we believe that a collective licensing solution to the mass digitization of 1 Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Courts, Intellectual Property, & the Internet of the H. Comm. Of the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 81 (2014) (statement of Jan Constantine, General Counsel, Authors Guild, Inc.), available at 1 literary works is not only proper, it is possible. An extended collective licensing solution is particularly suitable because it provides for the ability to obtain a broad license, while allowing for an opt-out.
    [Show full text]
  • Authors Guild V. Google, Inc., 804 F.3D 202 (2D Cir
    No. ___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ________ THE AUTHORS GUILD, ET AL., Petitioners, v. GOOGLE, INC., Respondent. ________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ________ Edward H. Rosenthal Paul M. Smith Jeremy S. Goldman Counsel of Record FRANKFURT KURNIT Lindsay C. Harrison KLEIN & SELZ, P.C. Mark P. Gaber 488 Madison Avenue JENNER & BLOCK LLP 10th Floor 1099 New York Ave. NW New York, NY 10022 Suite 900 (212) 980-0120 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 639-6000 [email protected] December 31, 2015 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Google made full digital copies of millions of books it obtained from libraries’ shelves without the authors’ consent. As payment, Google gave the libraries digital copies of the books. Google makes the books’ full text searchable on its revenue-generating search engine, and displays verbatim excerpts in response to users’ searches. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, in order to be “transformative” under the fair-use exception to copyright, the use of the copyrighted work must produce “new expression, meaning, or message,” as this Court stated in Campbell and as the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether the verbatim copying of works for a different, non-expressive purpose can be a transformative fair use, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held. 2. Whether the Second Circuit’s approach to fair use improperly makes “transformative purpose” the decisive factor, replacing the statutory four-factor test, as the Seventh Circuit has charged.
    [Show full text]
  • Hothitrust a Research Library at Web Scale
    55(2) LRTS 93 HothiTrust A Research Library at Web Scale Heather Christenson Research libraries have a mission to build collections that will meet the research needs of their user communities over time, to curate these collections to ensure perpetual access, and to facilitate intellectual and physical access to these col­ lections as effectively as pOSSible. Recent mass digitization projects as well as finanCial pressures and limited space to store print collections have created a new environment and new challenges for large research libraries. This paper will describe one approach to these challenges: HathiTrust, a shared digital repOSitory owned and operated by a partnership of more than forty major libraries. The activities of research libraries in the next five to 10 years will define the role of libraries in the digital age. The library community must now ensure that these collections not only retain their research value in a digital platform, but also realize their potential as users adjust their information needs and expectations. -HathiTrust FAQ, July 2010 (www.hathitrust.orglfaq) n an era of mass digitization of library collections, research libraries are I confronting an array of new challenges to continuing their traditional role as stewards of library collections. How will libraries ensure perpetual preservation of these sometimes massive new digital library collections, a promise Coogle does not make? How will libraries prOvide wide access to their digital collections in an appropriate manner, unbeholden to commercial interests
    [Show full text]